4.5 Article

Comparison of materno-fetal predictors and short-term outcomes between early and late onset pre-eclampsia in the low-income setting of Douala, Cameroon

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 142, Issue 2, Pages 228-234

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12531

Keywords

Early onset; Late onset; Maternal and fetal outcomes; Predictors; Pre-eclampsia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To describe and compare materno-fetal predictors and short-term outcomes of early onset pre-eclampsia (EOPE) and late onset pre-eclampsia (LOPE) in Douala, Cameroon. Methods: The present prospective hospital-based cross-sectional study included women with pre-eclampsia attending obstetric units at four hospitals in Douala between December 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. To determine maternal predictors, sociodemographic and medical data were recorded using a pretested questionnaire. Pregnancy outcomes, and maternal and fetal adverse events were recorded. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to examine associations. Results: Of 170 participants, 58 (34.1%) had EOPE and 112 (65.9%) had LOPE. EOPE was associated with higher incidences of chronic hypertension (P=0.027) and history of pre-eclampsia (P=0.003) compared with LOPE. Higher incidences of nulliparity and a different partner from prior pregnancy (P=0.024) were associated with LOPE. Women with EOPE had higher odds of acute kidney injury (odds ratio [OR] 6.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.73-25.73) and HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzyme, low platelets) syndrome (OR 10.47, 95% CI 1.19-91.9), and lower odds of deliveries without perinatal adverse events (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09-0.38), compared with patients with LOPE. Conclusion: In the low-income setting of Douala, there was a higher rate of LOPE than EOPE. Factors associated with EOPE and LOPE varied, and outcomes were worse for women with EOPE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available